2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Eddie Teach]

Thank you. I had not seen that.

If that's true, calling Marty out isn't nearly as funny. 

[garbon]

Too bad a taco bowl isn't mexican, the Trump Tower Grill isn't either, you're not eating taco bowls from New York because you're in WV today, CInco De Mayo isn't a hispanic holiday it's a mexican one, and you are the same color as the taco bowl shell. But I digress!

[Solmyr]

We are now on page 666 on this thread (at least if you use the default 15 messages per page).

[Legbiter]

We are now on page 666 on this thread (at least if you use the default 15 messages per page).

Thread is high-energy.

[Eddie Teach]

We are now on page 666 on this thread (at least if you use the default 15 messages per page).

[jimmy olsen]

It's going to be a long six months.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11589262/2016-general-election-is-going-to-suck

The media cannot countenance a lopsided race.

No institution needs a competitive election more than the media, especially what remains of the "objective" campaign media. Imagine writing this headline:

Trump, bad candidate, likely to lose

Now imagine writing it again and again for six months — and watching your web traffic dwindle into nothing. Sad!

The campaign press requires, for its ongoing health and advertising revenue, a real race. It needs controversies. "Donald Trump is not fit to be president" may be the accurate answer to pretty much every relevant question about the race, but it's not an interesting answer. It's too final, too settled. No one wants to click on it.

What's more, the campaign media's self-image is built on not being partisan, which precludes adjudicating political disputes. How does that even work if one side is offering up a flawed centrist and the other is offering up a vulgar xenophobic demagogue?

It would be profoundly out of character for reporters to spend the six months between now and the election writing, again and again, that one side's candidate is a liar and a racist and an egomaniac. It would be uncomfortable, personally and professionally.


It's true that the media has been uncharacteristically blunt in its criticism of Trump during the primary, mainly because almost every source it considers legitimate hates Trump, including the Republican establishment. To date, the anti-Trump position has been safely inside the Washington consensus.

That will change once the GOP apparatus inevitably swings around behind Trump and begins accusing journalists who write critical stories of bias. If there's one thing the GOP apparatus knows how to do, it's ensure that there's always another side, that reporters get smacked every time they move past "one hand, other hand" coverage.

Already we've seen reporters leap at the Trump "pivot" story several times, though Trump's newfound presidential tone never seems to last even a full 24 hours.

It will not take much for "new, grown-up Trump" stories to take hold once he is the nominee. The media and the GOP apparatus both need those stories, the former for "balance," the latter for paychecks.

In short order, Trump's obvious unfitness for office — today widely acknowledged across both parties and in the mainstream media — will become a partisan observation, something Democrats say. Consultants from the two parties will sit across from one another on cable news shows and squabble about it, as nature intended.

What we're accustomed to; what we need.

To the extent that Trump can't be lifted, Clinton will be brought down.

Just as the media will need to elevate Trump, it will need to bring Clinton down. Going after Clinton will be journalists' default strategy for proving that they're not biased. They will need opportunities to be "tough" toward Clinton, or at least to engage in the kind of performative toughness valued in campaign journalism, to demonstrate their continued independence.

Trump will give them opportunities. And it's not going to be through policy critique, a domain in which Clinton towers over him. It's going to be through tawdry, nasty shit.

Consider the attacks Trump has used to triumph in the primary: Cruz's father helped kill JFK; Cruz is not eligible to be president; Rubio is an effete liar who sweats too much; Kasich is a disgusting eater; Jeb Bush has low testosterone; Fiorina has an unpleasant face. His nickname for Clinton is already "crooked Hillary." He's already dredged up her husband's affairs and her alleged role in them.

Consider what Trump will do when he's behind, being bested by a woman, at risk of national humiliation, struggling to unite a party that is connected to him only through a shared hatred of Clinton. The mind boggles.


Will the Washington press corps chase after ridiculous personal attacks and conspiracy theories regarding Hillary Clinton, whispered into their ears by right-wing hacks?

Ha ha. Have you met the Washington press corps? They have been doing that since the early 1990s. Clinton rules mean guilty until proven innocent, then and now. The Washington media is a machine that transforms crap about Clintons into headlines, and Trump is a bottomless supply of crap.

Along with that, Clinton being Clinton, and Clintonworld being Clintonworld, there is likely to be no shortage of missteps, malapropisms, unforced errors, and poorly chosen surrogates to keep the media busy even without Trump's help. Stories purporting to (finally) bring Clinton down never lack for clicks. She is, after all, the most disliked national politician in American life ... except Donald Trump.

So there you have it: an obvious choice that numerous institutions and individuals are committed to making as difficult, as unpleasant, and as drawn-out as possible. It augurs a substance-free, policy-averse, crap-happy campaign season, degraded even by the diminished standards of contemporary US politics. Wake me when it's over.

[Legbiter]

The Vox writer in question.



Yeah, about what you'd think.

[garbon]

I don't know what I am supposed to think about that.

[Camerus]

To borrow from Legbiter's lexicon, I suppose he must be either a weird beard, a misty eyed herb, a kind and sensitive person, or some combination thereof.

[Admiral Yi]

Will the Washington press corps chase after ridiculous personal attacks and conspiracy theories regarding Hillary Clinton, whispered into their ears by right-wing hacks?

Ha ha. Have you met the Washington press corps? They have been doing that since the early 1990s. Clinton rules mean guilty until proven innocent, then and now. The Washington media is a machine that transforms crap about Clintons into headlines, and Trump is a bottomless supply of crap.

Article was fine until it got to here.

[Grinning_Colossus]

 

Trump in apparent reverse on taxes for rich

Presumptive US Republican nominee Donald Trump has said taxes for rich people may have to go up in an apparent reversal of his stated policy.
"On my plan they're going down. But by the time it's negotiated, they'll go up," Mr Trump told ABC's This Week.

He also apparently reversed his position on the minimum wage, telling the programme: "I'm allowed to change."

Mr Trump is all but certain to become the official Republican candidate for the November presidential election.
Several top Republicans have said they will not vote for him.

Mr Trump's tax plan says the wealthiest individuals would get a tax break. But he told ABC his "optimum plan" would be negotiated with Democrats, but not be approved as such.
His top priorities would be lowering taxes on businesses and the middle class, not helping the rich.

On the minimum wage, Mr Trump said: "I haven't decided in terms of numbers. But I think people have to get more." He has previously said he is against increasing the minimum wage.
When asked about the change of position, the New York billionaire said: "I'm allowed to change. You need flexibility."

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36239546

[Savonarola]

The media cannot countenance a lopsided race.

No institution needs a competitive election more than the media, especially what remains of the "objective" campaign media. Imagine writing this headline:

Trump, bad candidate, likely to lose

Now imagine writing it again and again for six months — and watching your web traffic dwindle into nothing. Sad!

I'm not so sure; they've written some version of that multiple times every day for the last six months and they seem to be doing okay.

[Razgovory]

Will the Washington press corps chase after ridiculous personal attacks and conspiracy theories regarding Hillary Clinton, whispered into their ears by right-wing hacks?

Ha ha. Have you met the Washington press corps? They have been doing that since the early 1990s. Clinton rules mean guilty until proven innocent, then and now. The Washington media is a machine that transforms crap about Clintons into headlines, and Trump is a bottomless supply of crap.

Article was fine until it got to here.

What is wrong with it?  The Washington Press Corps has reported all sorts of fake scandals over the decades.  They reported with seriousness when Republicans claimed she murdered Vince Foster.  Hell, our whole narrative about Clinton is based entirely what people who have hated her have said.  The Press Corps dutifully reported every conspiracy theory about the Clintons, nor matter how false, but failed to discover that the Speaker of the House WAS A FUCKING RAPIST.

[Admiral Yi]

"Reported with seriousness?"

[Razgovory]

"Reported with seriousness?"

Where are we going with this, Yi?